Michael Hunter wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 01:04:40 -0800
I was trying to make it a bit more readable, by not "drowning" the code
with MIB updates. Would you prefer the macros to be expanded? Or is
there be a better way to handle a "local" macro?
Expanded would be worse I think. All macros are local. What value do you
get by undef'ng it?
You get a clear indication that it will never be used outside that
function.
12326: XXX So what about them?
I am not sure if the "else" case is taken only when packets are
forwarded. If that is the case, then MIB counter should be bumped.
This needs to be resolved before putback.
It has now been resolved. The forwarding counter will be bumped.
mib2.h:
158: Was there a reason not to pick 26? I suspect you were leaving
room for growth but you might want to document the pattern you thought
might want to be followed. Although given the already almost random
nature of the allocations maybe thats a waste of time.
The value (31) is the OID of the MIB branch as defined in RFC 4293, and
was chosen in order to have some reason behind the value.
OK. Spot checking that appears to true of the rest. That list had
previously been ordered numerically. Why did you choose to break that
order and insert 31 in the middle?
I wanted to cluster the declarations based on IP version, which in my
opinion makes it clearer what capabilities are available. However, I now
noticed that the EXPER_* definitions are ordered in terms of their
values, so I will do the same for MIB2_IP_TRAFFIC_STATS to keep things
uniform.
Thanks,
Anders
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
